MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413274983 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.08.010

WITHDRAWN: Human Applications of Transcranial Temporal Interference Stimulation: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4413274983 on OpenAlexaff
Ilya Demchenko, Ishaan Tailor, Sina Chegini, Hongjie Yu, Fatemeh Gholamali Nezhad, Alice Rueda, Anne Kever, Sridhar Krishnan, Abhishek Datta, Jed A. Meltzer, Simon J. Graham, Tom A. Schweizer, Sumientra Rampersad, Edward S. Boyden, Inês R. Violante, Robert Chen, Andrés M. Lozano, Venkat Bhat

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoBaycrest HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceInterference (communication)Transcranial direct-current stimulationStimulationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Many neurological and psychiatric disorders involve dysregulation of subcortical structures. Transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS) is a novel, non-invasive method developed to selectively modulate these regions and associated neural circuits. Methods A systematic review was conducted to evaluate human applications of tTIS (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024559678). MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP were searched up to December 12, 2024. Studies involving human applications of tTIS were eligible. Methodological quality was appraised using the NIH and modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine tools. Results Forty-eight records were reviewed (20 published studies, 28 ongoing trials). Of published studies, 16 single-session and 4 multi-session studies assessed safety, mechanistic outcomes, or therapeutic effects of tTIS in 820 participants. Stimulation was most commonly delivered at beta (20 Hz) or gamma (30–130 Hz) envelope frequencies. Neuroimaging studies supported target engagement of the motor cortex, basal ganglia, and hippocampus in humans, particularly when stimulation was paired with behavioural tasks. Preliminary clinical findings in small samples demonstrated acute symptom improvements in bradykinesia and tremor within 60 minutes following a single tTIS session in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. Reported adverse events across studies were mild (e.g., tingling, itching). Emerging trials increasingly utilize multi-session protocols (2–40 sessions) and are extending tTIS to patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders, particularly epilepsy and depression. Conclusions Phase 1 studies demonstrate that tTIS is safe, well-tolerated, and can engage deep brain targets in humans. Well-controlled Phase 2 trials are needed to assess its therapeutic potential in patient populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207